Modifies provisions relating to civil actions for childhood sexual abuse, including the statute of limitations for such actions
Summary
SB 589 rewrites Missouri’s civil statute governing lawsuits for childhood sexual abuse. The bill repeals and reenacts section 537.046 to define “childhood sexual abuse” by reference to a broad set of sexual offense statutes and to clarify that recoverable injury may be physical or psychological, with psychological harm not requiring physical injury. It also preserves the ability to sue for damages arising from abuse committed against a person while under 18, including claims based on tortious conduct that caused the abuse to occur.
The central change is to the limitations period. Under current law, such actions generally had to be filed within a specified time after the victim reached age 21 or after discovery of the abuse-related injury. SB 589 removes that deadline and provides that an action “may be commenced at any time.” The bill also states that the new rule applies to actions commenced on or after August 28, 2025, including claims that would have been barred under the prior statute of limitations, effectively reviving previously time-barred claims.
Impact
The bill would substantially expand civil liability exposure for defendants in childhood sexual abuse cases by eliminating the statute of limitations for these claims in Missouri. It would amend section 537.046, RSMo, and apply retroactively to actions filed on or after August 28, 2025, including claims previously barred under older limitation rules. Affected parties include alleged perpetrators, institutions or other parties sued for tortious conduct connected to abuse, and survivors seeking damages for physical or psychological injuries.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be a survivor-focused measure intended to broaden access to the courts for victims of childhood sexual abuse. The overall policy direction is strongly favorable to plaintiffs and consistent with efforts to remove procedural barriers to filing abuse claims. No formal opposition or support is documented in the provided context, but the bill’s retroactive revival of claims suggests it would likely draw scrutiny from defendants and potentially institutions facing renewed exposure.
Contention
The main point of contention is the elimination of the filing deadline and the retroactive application to claims that were already time-barred. Supporters would likely argue that survivors often need many years to come forward and that psychological trauma can delay discovery of harm, while opponents would likely focus on fairness, finality, and the burden of defending stale claims. Another likely issue is the bill’s broad reach to actions against “any party,” which could include institutions or third parties alleged to have enabled or caused the abuse.